Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Am Samstag, den 17.03.2018, 21:32 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > I agree that the current text is confusing. I wonder if we can > improve > on the confusion by just saying something like > > Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not > available > at this time. The most recent LyX release that has official > Windows > binaries is 2.2.3. There are 2 Windows installer variants: > > I will make that change. > > If you think that it is still too confusing, and other developers > also > agree that we should hide that text, I can be convinced. I am fine with that, but probably you should change the text below to "For Cygwin, however, there is a binary for 2.3.0. It can be downloaded here: lyx-2.3.0-cygwin.tar.gz." Jürgen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 06:15:20PM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 15.03.2018, 15:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > > Leaving 2.2.3 as it is? > > > > Yes I think so. > > I suggest to hide the text mentioning the two installer variants (and > pointing to 2.2.3). It probably irritates more than it helps, see > http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/11079 I agree that the current text is confusing. I wonder if we can improve on the confusion by just saying something like Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available at this time. The most recent LyX release that has official Windows binaries is 2.2.3. There are 2 Windows installer variants: I will make that change. If you think that it is still too confusing, and other developers also agree that we should hide that text, I can be convinced. > The 2.2.3 binaries are still reachable, after all, via "Previous > versions". But that requires a few extra clicks. > I'd also keep the link to the LyX for Windows wiki page, where Uwe or > somebody else might add information should there be "inofficial" > binaries we do not want to officially list on the website. Agreed. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Am Donnerstag, den 15.03.2018, 15:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > Leaving 2.2.3 as it is? > > Yes I think so. I suggest to hide the text mentioning the two installer variants (and pointing to 2.2.3). It probably irritates more than it helps, see http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/11079 The 2.2.3 binaries are still reachable, after all, via "Previous versions". I'd also keep the link to the LyX for Windows wiki page, where Uwe or somebody else might add information should there be "inofficial" binaries we do not want to officially list on the website. Jürgen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer > > variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version > > info) text as in the announcement: > > > > Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available > > at this time. > > > > Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the > > availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries > > to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available. > > My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open. > > I wouldn't worry about that now either. Just make the release, the windows > situation will need more time to be resolved. The statement above seems > just fine. Sounds good. Thanks, Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer > variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version > info) text as in the announcement: > > Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available > at this time. > > Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the > availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries > to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available. > My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open. I wouldn't worry about that now either. Just make the release, the windows situation will need more time to be resolved. The statement above seems just fine. Pavel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:28:44AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce > > > 2.3.0 on Friday. > > > > For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the > > following: > > > > Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this > > time. > > What you plan to do with Windows section in Download page? > Leaving 2.2.3 as it is? Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version info) text as in the announcement: Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available at this time. Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available. My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open. Any other suggestions? Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce > > 2.3.0 on Friday. > > For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the > following: > > Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this > time. What you plan to do with Windows section in Download page? Leaving 2.2.3 as it is? Pavel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Am 15.03.2018 4:12 vorm. schrieb "Scott I still have the hope that we can upload the Windows binaries soon. I certainly hope so, too! Jürgen Scott
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:12:26AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:23:31AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0 > > now, without the Windows installer. > > I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce > 2.3.0 on Friday. For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the following: Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this time. This hints at the following: 1. unofficial Windows binaries might be available if users want them. 2. "at this time" reflects my hope that we will be able to upload them at a later time. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:23:31AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0 > now, without the Windows installer. I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce 2.3.0 on Friday. I still have the hope that we can upload the Windows binaries soon. I will continue the lyx-users thread. Maybe if we come up with a dialog that users on lyx-users agree would not be confusing, Uwe will be interested in including the dialog. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Le 14/03/2018 à 12:52, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Abdelrazak Younes wrote: AFAIU, it is too late already. 2 weeks already... Too bad! It's actually exactly two weeks. LyX 2.3.0 already hit testing branch of Debian. Maybe if we filed a request at ubuntu bugzilla we might still have chance, don't know how strict they are with the march 1 deadline, but my guess is they are ;) JMarc, you were active on their tracker no? I am active fo things I understand (LyX bug). But Ubuntu policies is not part of what I understand. Hmm, we are getting slower than conservative folks in debian... :) Indeed. JMarc
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-) > > That's a bizarre form of masochism :) > Where do you live now, there were some rumors we might try to organize > development meeting after the years... > Living close to Lausanne in Switzerland, well I guess we could organize one here, I can book a nice meeting room for the week-end. Abdel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > AFAIU, it is too late already. > > > > 2 weeks already... > > > > Too bad! It's actually exactly two weeks. LyX 2.3.0 already hit testing branch of Debian. Maybe if we filed a request at ubuntu bugzilla we might still have chance, don't know how strict they are with the march 1 deadline, but my guess is they are ;) JMarc, you were active on their tracker no? Hmm, we are getting slower than conservative folks in debian... :) Pavel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-) That's a bizarre form of masochism :) Where do you live now, there were some rumors we might try to organize development meeting after the years... Pavel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Le 14/03/2018 ?? 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : > >> By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next > >> Ubuntu LTS release... > > > > AFAIU, it is too late already. > > 2 weeks already... > Too bad! > Hi Abdel, nice to hear you again!! :) > Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-) You guys are still doing a great job, congratz for this release! Abdel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Le 14/03/2018 à 02:43, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : [...] So the average user does not know how LaTeX works, what a package is and how it is installed or uninstalled. Sure he does know if he installed LyX himself. as I pointed out in the other thread. I tried to be an average Window user (a bit difficult, as I am neither for LyX as I am experienced nor for Windows 10 as I know very little about it) and ran the last bundle installer. The reference to MiKTeX is present throughout the installation process, particularly of course during the MiKTeX install itself, but also when MiKTeX installs missing LaTeX packages. As I wrote, most of my students and colleagues at the University uses LyX for large documents without knowing anything about LaTeX. Did they install themselves, or did some experienced guy did it for them? Why don't you trust my experience in helping LyX users? Why should I lie to you with my experience? I am convinced that none of us deny your experience and think that you are lying in any manner. Therefore our main userbase are just users. The task of the installer is to provide a working LyX for them. Users with more knowledge know what to do and how LaTeX works. Therefore I won't bother the majority of users with a decision they cannot make because lack of knowledge. I explained now a dozen times why I cannot allow these users to deny an update because then their LaTeX can be broken and they are lost. The experienced users have already all possibilities to handle LaTeX differently as I wrote. The current shortened version of the new dialog which could be inserted at the very beginning of the installation process is clearly addressed to people knowing something about MiKTeX. The LyX installer requires to update MiKTeX to the newest 2.9 version. If you use MiKTeX with other applications and do not want to update now, cancel the LyX installation. Cancel Continue Plain users are thus urged to continue without further hesitation, as you do in the bundle installer when it comes to the MiKTeX install: ${LangFileString} LatexInfo 'Now the installer of the LaTeX-distribution $\"MiKTeX$\" will be launched.$\r$\n\ 57 To install the program press the $\"Next$\"-button in the installer windows until the installation begins.$\r$\n\ 58 $\r$\n\ 59 !!! Please use all default options of the MiKTeX-installer !!!' [...] I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term, we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX, much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely Windows users can manage to do the same. I cannot accept that you are telling me what is good for Windows users. I explained my decision but you are not understanding. Why don't you try it out yourself to see what can happen? Nobody here wants to tell you what is good for Windows users, the question raised is about what is good for the future of LyX. The present situation shows clearly that the packaging approach has attained some limits. I understand that you may be exhausted to explain again and again to Linux users (accustomed to global OS packaging e.g. with experimental, unstable, testing and stable releases) that Windows is such a weird OS with lots of software instabilities that proposing a LyX packaging is the only way to make LyX work. But the debate must take place in a non passionate manner, later on. The urgent action is the 2.3.0 release. -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 14/03/2018 ?? 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : >> By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next >> Ubuntu LTS release... > > AFAIU, it is too late already. 2 weeks already... Hi Abdel, nice to hear you again!! :) Pavel
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Le 14/03/2018 à 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next Ubuntu LTS release... AFAIU, it is too late already. JMarc PS: Hi Abdel!
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next Ubuntu LTS release... On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Hi Guys, > > In the old days we had the Friday rule for fight... you should restore the > tradition :-) > > Cheers, > Abdel > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more >> and more ridiculous, here is my position. >> >> I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX >> 2.3.0 now, without the Windows installer. >> >> It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release >> while refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position >> of _any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release >> manager's decision. >> >> It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who >> knows what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look >> like. I am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I >> do not consider the Windows installer a part of this community project, >> since a community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2) >> above. Since this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to >> release "his" installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider >> "right", and he does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments. >> >> With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot >> proceed like this. >> >> Jürgen >> > >
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Hi Guys, In the old days we had the Friday rule for fight... you should restore the tradition :-) Cheers, Abdel On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Dear all, > > I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more > and more ridiculous, here is my position. > > I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0 > now, without the Windows installer. > > It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release > while refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position > of _any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release > manager's decision. > > It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who > knows what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look > like. I am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I > do not consider the Windows installer a part of this community project, > since a community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2) > above. Since this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to > release "his" installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider > "right", and he does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments. > > With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot > proceed like this. > > Jürgen >
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Dear all, I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more and more ridiculous, here is my position. I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0 now, without the Windows installer. It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release while refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position of _any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release manager's decision. It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who knows what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look like. I am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I do not consider the Windows installer a part of this community project, since a community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2) above. Since this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to release "his" installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider "right", and he does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments. With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot proceed like this. Jürgen
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On 03/13/2018 09:43 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 12.03.2018 um 04:32 schrieb Richard Heck: > >> That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has >> clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer. > > Dear Richard, > > I cannot leave this commented because it is too fundamental. I tried > to calm down, but cannot. Pardon me if this seems presumptuous, but it does seem to me as if you are much too invested, emotionally, in these issues. We are talking about software. > What is LyX for? It is a frontend for LaTeX. It is designed to hide > LaTeX from the users. That is your opinion, I understand. But I disagree. It is true that LyX makes it possible to take advantage of LaTeX's typesetting abilities without knowing anything about LaTeX *as long as your needs are very basic*. It is misleading to tell people anything else, and I do not myself see why we should cater specially to users whose needs remain at such a basic level. To me, what is most valuable about LyX is how it *eases the learning curve* for people who are new to LaTeX. Honestly: Look at the kinds of posts we get on lyx-users. The great majority of these are actually about LaTeX. I wonder how many users we LOSE because of false advertising: users who think LyX will make it possible for them to do all kinds of things that you simply can't do without knowing some LaTeX. E.g., change how section titles are displayed. It's a very simple thing to want to do, but it is actually very hard to do in LyX, as opposed to Word, and for good reason. There's a real change of mindset involved in moving from Word etc to LyX and LaTeX that we understate at our peril. >> It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now >> delay LyX releases, > > When did we had the last time a delay because of a bug in MiKTeX? There have been at least two such occasions since I've been branch maintainer. I can look up the emails if you like. And this one has been really painful, requiring three or four different installers before we even got to the release. > We had much, much more problems in the past with ImageMagick. I had to > create > many installer builds because of this program. I know, and I have had to upload them. This is just the same problem. LyX should not be integrated with such programs the way it apparently is on Windows. OSX and Linux users do not have these issues. We do not need new installers, because the installation of LyX is independent of these other programs. They can be upgraded independently, if users need new features or bug fixes, or not, if they do not. I do not see why we cannot do something similar on Windows. >> LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX >> distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. > > Again, please try our LyX under windows by yourself before you continue. > take a Win users without knowledge of LaTeX and they should use TeXLive. I am not saying you should integrate LyX instead with TeXLive. I am saying that it would be a lot better for everyone if the Windows installer, just as on OSX or Linux, ONLY installed LyX and did not try to manage everything else. To try to do what you have been trying to do is to try to do something *impossible*. Please read what follows carefully. I do understand why you'd like to manage everything on which LyX depends: TeX, ImageMagick, etc, etc, etc. It's a great idea to have a package management system that handles all those dependencies. But you are consigning yourself to misery if you are going to try create such a thing yourself on Windows just for LyX. The various Linux distributions have HUGE TEAMS of people who work on nothing else. It is a HUGE project to do this. Linxu distros are incredibly careful about what updates they incorporate into various releases; they distinguish 'long term' releases from 'bleeding edge' releases; and so forth. Whereas LyX on Windows, by contrast, seems to be vulnerable to every update of every piece of software on which it depends. That makes LyX, or our users, way too vulnerable to bugs that turn up in other programs on which we rely. Ask José about it. He has a lot of experience. And the problems we have just had with MiKTeX make this all the more apparent. Granted, users who decided to install MiKTeX with LyX would still have those problems. But then those would be *MiKTeX* problems, not our problems, and not problems that would delay the release of a MAJOR version for a week or more. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? It's a valiant effort what you are trying to do, but in the end it has created a huge problem both for you and for the rest of the LyX community. Richard
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
Am 12.03.2018 um 04:32 schrieb Richard Heck: That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer. Dear Richard, I cannot leave this commented because it is too fundamental. I tried to calm down, but cannot. What is LyX for? It is a frontend for LaTeX. It is designed to hide LaTeX from the users. Because of this I came once to LyX: "Cool, I don't have to learn LaTeX but can use it!". This way I used it for about a year for internship protocols at the University. So long after I came to LyX I started to learn what is behind it. As new LyX user you will first learn in sec. 6 of the UserGuide something of LaTeX and there also not about package handling. ( Users liking to work with LaTeX directly can and will use other editors like TeXWorks.) So the average user does not know how LaTeX works, what a package is and how it is installed or uninstalled. As I wrote, most of my students and colleagues at the University uses LyX for large documents without knowing anything about LaTeX. Why don't you trust my experience in helping LyX users? Why should I lie to you with my experience? Therefore our main userbase are just users. The task of the installer is to provide a working LyX for them. Users with more knowledge know what to do and how LaTeX works. Therefore I won't bother the majority of users with a decision they cannot make because lack of knowledge. I explained now a dozen times why I cannot allow these users to deny an update because then their LaTeX can be broken and they are lost. The experienced users have already all possibilities to handle LaTeX differently as I wrote. I won't repeat this anymore now. Please add an appropriate sentence to the announcement or release notes for the experienced users that then will have to set "Never" in miktex for the package handling if they like to. But also tell them the risks of this. I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term, we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX, much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely Windows users can manage to do the same. I cannot accept that you are telling me what is good for Windows users. I explained my decision but you are not understanding. Why don't you try it out yourself to see what can happen? I would also not start a debate how to handle with LyX under Mac or Linux because I don't know these OSes or don't use them. Do you use MiKTeX? Do you use LyX under Windows? Do you know LyX Windows users who don't know LaTeX? So why do you state what is good for them? It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now delay LyX releases, When did we had the last time a delay because of a bug in MiKTeX? We had much, much more problems in the past with ImageMagick. I had to create many installer builds because of this program. LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. Again, please try our LyX under windows by yourself before you continue. take a Win users without knowledge of LaTeX and they should use TeXLive. Then you'll see. It is unacceptable that you tell me what mistakes I made. You know nothing about TeXLive and its problem in the past. We had many discussions with users and the current installer is the result. For more than 10 years I provide it and spent hundreds of ours in supporting users. I tried to fix problem, as fast as possible. I give up now. Uwe
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On 03/12/2018 12:44 AM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > On 12/03/2018 4:32 p.m., Richard Heck wrote: >> On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: >>> Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: >>> I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is that I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm. >>> And I made clear why I am opposed to this. >>> In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users >>> will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users. >> That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has >> clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer. >> >> If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then >> that is the problem, as others have already said. >> >> I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term, >> we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX, >> much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to >> manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely >> Windows users can manage to do the same. >> >> It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now >> delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every >> minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so >> far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX. >> It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require, >> on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that >> simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it. >> >> LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX >> distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the >> desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a >> fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is >> offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential >> this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate' >> some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make >> it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release, >> that cannot so easily be broken. >> >> Richard >> > Uwe provides two installers at present, one of which does NOT install > MiKTeX and which could be used, if I understand right, with any LaTeX > distribution (or at least TeXLive or MiKTeX). This is the one that > I've always used -- mainly from using dial up until a few years ago. > The bundle installer was far too big to download by dial up. I used > Uwe's installer-1 for 2.3.0 and have used 2.3.0 every day through the > problem period without issues. Possibly the lack of problems for me is > because I didn't use the MiKTeX console for updating MiKTeX but the > older update program (miktex-update_admin.exe). (In fact I wasn't > aware that there was such a thing as the console until reading about > it in the present discussion.) I know there are these two installers, but it was my understanding from the present discussion that even the basic installer was affected by the MiKTeX bugs we've been fighting. Perhaps I misunderstood, but Scott asked a very explicit question along those lines. If you're right, then perhaps what we need to do is simply offer the basic installer 'officially' and not the bundle. Richard
Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues
On 12/03/2018 4:32 p.m., Richard Heck wrote: On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is that I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm. And I made clear why I am opposed to this. In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users. That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer. If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then that is the problem, as others have already said. I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term, we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX, much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely Windows users can manage to do the same. It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX. It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require, on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it. LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate' some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release, that cannot so easily be broken. Richard Uwe provides two installers at present, one of which does NOT install MiKTeX and which could be used, if I understand right, with any LaTeX distribution (or at least TeXLive or MiKTeX). This is the one that I've always used -- mainly from using dial up until a few years ago. The bundle installer was far too big to download by dial up. I used Uwe's installer-1 for 2.3.0 and have used 2.3.0 every day through the problem period without issues. Possibly the lack of problems for me is because I didn't use the MiKTeX console for updating MiKTeX but the older update program (miktex-update_admin.exe). (In fact I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as the console until reading about it in the present discussion.) Andrew --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Windows Installer: Future Issues
On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > >> I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is that >> I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm. > > And I made clear why I am opposed to this. > In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users > will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users. That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer. If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then that is the problem, as others have already said. I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term, we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX, much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely Windows users can manage to do the same. It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX. It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require, on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it. LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate' some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release, that cannot so easily be broken. Richard